Mukora v National Industrial Training Authority & another (Cause 32 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2007 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a dismissed employee over Kshs 2 million because her disciplinary hearing lacked quorum and included her accuser.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the claimant was fairly and justly terminated.
- 2.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant was fairly and justly terminated
The dismissal was unfair and unjustified because the disciplinary committee lacked quorum and included the claimant's accuser, denying her a fair hearing
The court found that of the six members appointed by the Director General only three attended the hearing of 12 January 2016, two sent apologies, and the Centre Manager E.M. Kirindi, who was the claimant's accuser, sat on the committee. The court held the quorum objection valid and applied Section 7(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act on abuse of power, concluding the flawed process rendered the dismissal unfair under Section 45(2) of the Employment Act.
Whether the claimant was denied an opportunity to present her case to the correct forum on appeal
The claimant was denied an opportunity to present her case to the correct forum and her appeal grounds were not considered
The appeals committee comprised officers junior to members of the disciplinary committee and the claimant; the Ombudsman's inquiry and the PSC appeal did not consider her grounds. The court found the internal appeal structures flawed, compounding the unfairness of the original dismissal.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Awarded one month's notice pay, 12 months' compensation, unremitted pension contributions and a certificate of service; underpayment and salary-until-retirement claims failed
Having found unfair and unjustified dismissal, the court applied Sections 49 and 51 of the Employment Act framework, awarding notice pay and maximum 12 months' compensation given the claimant's age and difficulty of securing new employment. The underpayment claim was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act and the claim for salary until retirement was not granted.
Legal principles established
#- Subjecting an employee to a disciplinary committee lacking quorum and containing her accuser renders the process unfair and the resulting dismissal unjustified under Section 45 of the Employment Act
- A termination is unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid and fair reason and fair procedure, as provided by Section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.1 month salary in lieu of notice of Kshs 154,596/-
- 2.Compensation for unlawful dismissal of 12 months' salary (Kshs 154,596 x 12 = Kshs 1,855,152/-)
- 3.Unremitted pension contributions of Kshs 29,845/-
- 4.Total award of Kshs 2,039,593/- less statutory deductions
- 5.Issuance of a certificate of service to the claimant
- 6.1st respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment and Labour Relations Court); Employment Act, Fair Administrative Action Act and PSC Act invoked
Relief refused
#Kshs 23,068,881/- claimed, including underpayment of salary and allowances and salary until retirement
Underpayment claim caught by limitation under Section 90 of the Employment Act and claim for future earnings until retirement not granted; compensation limited to statutory remedies
Reinstatement as Chief Industrial Training Officer without loss of benefits
Claimant abandoned the prayer for reinstatement
Costs
The 1st respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The objection by the claimant on lack of quorum was therefore a valid concern. The claimant could not have expected a fair determination against her in view of her accuser being a member of the disciplinary committee.
Given that the claimant was subjected to a flawed disciplinary process, I find the dismissal unfair and unjustified.
It is my finding that the claimant was denied an opportunity to present her case to the correct forum and also issues raised in her appeals were not considered.
1. 1 month salary in lieu of notice = 154,596/- 2. Compensation for unlawful dismissal and based on the process which would not allow the claimant recover and gain another job at her age, I find 12 months' salary as adequate.= 154,596 x 12 =kshs 1,855,152/-
The 1st respondent will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgement.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternates between referring to the claimant's gender, e.g. 'she' and 'his' for the PSC letter, and misdates documents inconsistently (e.g. hearing adjourned to '12/1/2015', letter '28th August 2016' versus '28th August 2015')
The 1st respondent's submissions state the claimant 'confirmed that she deserted from duty from 28th July 2015' while other parts of the record refer to desertion from 28th August 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mukora v National Industrial Training Authority & another (Cause 32 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 2007 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Claim (Amended Statement of Claim dated 15th December 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2007/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.